Jump to content

Talk:Data Colada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable sources with coverage

[edit]

Here's a list of sources that can be used to expand/support the article. I don't think any are super in depth, though

AncientWalrus (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 01:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Draft started by Cwontonsoup (talk), expanded and moved to mainspace by HaeB (talk). Nominated by HaeB (talk) at 05:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Data Colada; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I think the first hook is not great as "contributed to the start of the replication crisis" can be understood negatively as in "they caused the replication crisis" when what they did was "draw attention" to the issue. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the source refers to the replication crisis in the sense of an awareness that some established research practices are problematic and research results can't be replicated, rather than these problems themselves (which, as the source also notes, had begun much earlier). But I see your point. How about this (a bit long for my taste, but still well below the 200 prose characters limit):
  • ALT2: ... that the three bloggers of Data Colada have been credited with exposing faulty research practices in the social sciences, thus contributing to the start of the replication crisis?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think I might still be QPQ exempt, but I did a review here anyway. Regards, HaeB (talk)

@Viriditas: I just responded to your comment on the talk, and made some edits to address the issue you pointed out there and improve the corresponding article section in other ways too.
Regarding the hooks: Thoughts about ALT1? Concerning ALT0 and ALT2, I've been a bit reluctant to change the wording to "draw attention to the replication crisis", because the source (The New Yorker) uses "replication crisis" in the sense of an increased awareness of existing problems, rather than the problems themselves, and I think ALT2 greatly reduces the likelihood of the potential misunderstanding of ALT0 that AncientWalrus pointed out. That said, it does seem that the term "replication crisis" can also be interpreted in the latter sense. So how about this:
ALT3: ... that the three bloggers of Data Colada have been credited with exposing faulty research practices in the social sciences, thus drawing attention to the replication crisis?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: are you open to shortening ALT3 to something like ... that Data Colada bloggers drew attention to the replication crisis by exposing faulty research practices in the social sciences? Or some shorter variation thereof? I like the brevity of ALT1. Perhaps something like ... that the Data Colada blog criticized faulty research practices and uncovered evidence for data manipulation? That brings us down to 108 characters, which is the shortest hook yet in the above set. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Shorter is better of course. Either of these would work for me:
ALT1a: ... that the Data Colada blog has criticized faulty research practices and uncovered evidence for data manipulation? (Considering that the blog is still active, the present perfect seems more adequate.)
ALT3a: ... that the Data Colada bloggers drew attention to the replication crisis by exposing faulty social science research? (I was able to shorten your version by 18 characters - thanks to a wording suggested by ChatGPT - but then splurged four of them on a definite article, considering that this statement is about the blog's entire team.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is new and long enough; moved to mainspace 1 Oct, expanded and submitted to DYK 8 Oct at 5073 char; currently 5604 char. Article is well-sourced, assuming neutrality and BLP-compliance given the delicate nature of the subject and accusations against living people and the notable lawsuits described are accurately reflected by the reliable sources. Earwig identified a very minor issue, which I copyedited just in case, but was probably fine to begin with, but just to be sure, I removed it. I made additional copyedits to the prose which should be reviewed. While I think ALT1a and ALT3a up above are good to go, I think we can go even shorter with something like ... that Data Colada uncovered evidence of faulty research practices and data manipulation? Which I kind of like since it doesn't say it's a blog and makes readers curious enough to click. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just looked over your copyedits and made some additional small tweaks and clarifications.
Regarding hooks: I'm kind of partial to keeping in the blog aspect, as the fact that this isn't a traditional academic publication is part of what makes the article's subject peculiar and interesting (the NYT put it into their headline too). Don't feel too strongly about it though. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

[edit]
The suit does not contest or refute the defendants' scientific findings. It asserts that since the researchers used inference and probability to argue that the anomalies between the original dataset and the data used in Gino's analyses could not have been due to random chance or benign error, and therefore occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the scientific misconduct.

I'm having trouble parsing this. Are there words missing? Has anyone checked the source to see if it reflects what was written? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving the article a close read. About this passage, which I didn't author myself (as noted in the corresponding edit summary, it came from the corresponding section in Francesca Gino, where it had been added by someone else in August and still remains unchanged right now):
  • The meaning seems clear to me - it's just that the second sentence is quite awkwardly written. Perhaps it is a bit easier to parse when shortened as follows: The suit [...] asserts that since the researchers used inference and probability to argue that the anomalies [...] occurred from fraudulent manipulation, the defendants cannot prove she in particular committed the scientific misconduct.
  • However, it indeed doesn't seem to be fully supported by the cited WaPo article - for starters, some of Gino's statements that it quotes are from her social media posts, not the lawsuit itself. (I hadn't checked this in detail because it matched broadly what I recalled reading about the lawsuit in other RS.) It's also a bit imprecise in mixing up separate defensive arguments (1. Gino claiming that the findings are merely probabilistic in nature and don't constitute definite proof of misconduct, vs. 2. Gino implying that the misconduct for which these papers were retracted was committed by some unnamed other people in each case, rather than herself), and in combining the findings of Harvard's own internal investigation (by a forensic research firm) with Data Colada's.
  • While it should be possible to address these issues using other sources (which I might still do later in the article Francesca Gino), on reflection I think we don't need to go into this in this article anyway. So I have just replaced it by a more direct quote from Gino via the cited WaPo article, while rewriting the entire lawsuit section (which, as also already mentioned in the aforementioned edit summary, needed to focus more on aspects particular to this article's subject anyway).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Data_Colada&oldid=1219269623"